G.S. Sistani, J. - (1.) RULE . With the consent of counsel for the parties, writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, which have led to the filing of the present petitions, are that on 20.12.1988 petitioners submitted their bid for auction and allotment of a shop bearing no.6, measuring no.5 sq. mt., in Shopping Centre C/o 112 MS (SFS Flats), Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi. The bid was submitted by the petitioners jointly for a sum of Rs.48,000/ - and being the highest bid the same was accepted. A sum of Rs.12,000/ - was deposited by the petitioners on the spot towards the earnest money as per terms and conditions. Petitioners received a communication dated 25.1.1989 addressed by the DDA to the petitioners requiring them to deposit the balance amount of the shop, in question, which was Rs.36,000/ - + Rs.17.50p. towards the ground rent + Rs.17.50p. towards maintenance charges plus Rs.45/ - towards document charges. It is the case of the petitioners that they deposited the total amount of Rs.36,000/ - in cash on 23.2.1989 vide Challan no.47224 at State Bank of India, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. It is also the case of the petitioners that a third copy of the challan was sent to the respondent, as required by the DDA. The petitioners received a default notice dated 4.4.2009 from the DDA that they have not deposited Rs.36,080/ - and also threatened to cancel the bid. On 11.4.1989 petitioners informed the respondent DDA that the above payment was made on 23.2.1989 and the respondent DDA was also supplied a third copy of the challan, which fact is disputed by counsel for the respondent DDA. Petitioners received another default notice dated 21.6.1989 alleging non -deposit of the amount which was replied to by the petitioners on 27.7.1989. Petitioners were again called upon by the DDA on 30.1.1997 to furnish third copy of the challan failing which the bid would be cancelled.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have personally met the officials of the DDA in the year 2001 and also submitted certain documents to the DDA. Petitioners addressed several letters to the DDA. As no satisfactory response was received by the DDA, petitioners have been forced to file the present writ petition.;